506 réponses à ce sujet

[Monica83]

mrcrusty wrote...

The consoles are a limitation on the technical advancement of creating video games. Speaking from a hardware perspective, they are outdated.

Fact. Not opinion. Fact.

That does not mean that games geared towards consoles are crap, or that it isn't possible to cater to both at once. I feel like New Vegas was the epitome of compromise between mostly PC players who wanted the depth and roleplaying of the original Fallout games, and the mostly console players who wanted a similar or better gameplay experience to Fallout 3. I love that game overall and I think it improved on the gunplay, exploration and real time elements that made Fallout 3 great, while adding elements that makes the "PC elitist RPG fan" in me happy.

I also feel that designating stereotypes to types of gamers depending on platform is a stupid notion.

Unfortunately, it's what developers and especially publishers do all the time.

Case in point, both Dragon Age 2 and Witcher 2 were both adapted to work on the consoles as opposed to the PC. For all the smugness of Witcher 2 being a PC game, it's control scheme, inventory layout, UI and engine scalability clearly makes it a game they developed for the consoles.

What they didn't do, was stereotype console players as some slack jawed idiots who would be afraid of introducing depth into the game's mechanics outside of making things explode more. Console players aren't and there are a large range of high selling console games that push technological boundaries and contain depth in it's gameplay. L.A Noire is but a recent example.

Dragon Age 2 unfortunately, fell somewhat to the "zomg! console players must like bigger boooooom!" mentality that plagues publishers. It leaves it's mark on the game's combat. While it was faster and I consider that a plus, it was undeniably more juvenile and in my opinion became absurd especially when comparing it to the combat in Origins.

i agree completely on your post

[abaris]

Realmzmaster wrote...

Let state the facts Call of Duty sells 5.6 million copies in 24 hours. DAO sells 4.5 million copies in 2 years. Like it or not EA shareholders are going to see those numbers coming out of the console market. So EA and most big publishers are going to try to leverage all of their IP to maximize profit.

That's ignoring they're catering to a totally different audience to begin with, not just different platforms.

COD sells as many copies because of its coop and multiplayer features, not because its that original or made for a certain gaming environment.

So yes. of course the shareholders want a piece of that cake, but they won't get it by bending an established franchise into the COD direction. The COD players will still play COD. The only way getting to the trough would be to make their very own COD and a better one at that, since they're going into close and personal combat with an established franchise.

The problem is, they wanted to create a Jack of all Trades. Pleasing some, losing many, but not achieving the ambitious goal they set for themselves.

Of course a game developer will build for the console. Not only because of its market share, but because of the easier environment. Only a couple of hardware configurations to look at when programming. Therefore a cheaper production and the expectation of making a higher profit. But they don't have to look for the lowest common denominator. Even compared to other console ports, DAII is looking rather poor and halfassed.

[erichtho]

Came here just because I read some comments stating that the "haters" (can't tolerate criticism, can you?) are the same persons all over. So might as well give my 2 cents and say my sure opinion as well.

I've read a bunch of DA2 threads lately and you can guess why... Well, I'm really really pissed off at the devs for stating that fans of DAO would like 2. How can you compare these two games? I mean, DA2 can be an ok game for people who enjoy simplified stuff, but they are also people who don't like DA:O. My personal opinion is that DA2 is a kiddie's game. Or for those who enjoy naivete (or might as well say "those who don't look for intellectual merit in games"). Maybe I can only speak for myself, but DA2 is exactly the game I would have enjoyed thoroughly throughout elementary and middle school. But now, after the immense and gratifying in-a-mature-way DAO I'm presented with a poorly and quickly done game with the qualities of the Transformers' movie. C'mon guys, can any of you believe the psychology of any character in DA2? Seriously? I was embaressed every few seconds of the experience.

I think the whole thing cannot be taken seriously (and I'm pretty sure gamers that loved BG nad DAO are into "serious" gaming). It wouldn't make any actual difference in playing DA2 and watching a play-through - no player input nor thought nor reflection is required here. Rather, it disencourages it and lets players just "jump in for the ride". The game lacks depth, no question here. I cannot find any traces of believable work nor creativity involved whatsoever.

Ok, I've finished my rant. And going to say just this:

Those who like a game of serious quality and not just a imagination-land-type lackluster, don't buy this.
And I for one won't buy anything of EA nor Bioware in the near future.

Didn't mean to be rude or offend someone, this was only addressed to Bioware itself. And if they're offended, then eh, I was offended first by their advertising as a scheme for dollars.

(btw, I'm a bit inconvenient with English, sorry)...

Modifié par erichtho, 05 août 2011 - 10:39 .

[erichtho]

Though I've also to say I didn't like any Mass Effect either. Maybe they pulled some of that into DA2 (I mean, they didn't really innovate anything in DA2 - all that's new is much rather some console-oriented "dragon effect"), so for all who enjoyed ME - this can be ok for you I guess. Though most likely worse.

I'd call it a mixer between a more viewer-friendly god of war (or dante's inferno game), some transformer's game and ME.

[contextual_entity]

We have a very similar thread active right now, was it really necessary to necro this one?

[erichtho]

I guess not - just found it quickly via Google. Sorry.

[nubbers666]

to make a long story short
they listen to complainers on dao and made da2 ..
the ones who liked dao complained about da2 *me included*

[Anathemic]

Why did you necro...

[Darth_Trethon]

All there is to be said about DA2 is that it's one of the best games ever made. The end.

[NPLMZ]

i'd give DA2 10/10 as i would any DA game, because i'm a fanboy.

[BounceDK]

Have I typed 'yes it's a bad game' in this thread yet? If not: Yes it's a bad game.

[bEVEsthda]

abaris wrote...

Realmzmaster wrote...

Let state the facts Call of Duty sells 5.6 million copies in 24 hours. DAO sells 4.5 million copies in 2 years. Like it or not EA shareholders are going to see those numbers coming out of the console market. So EA and most big publishers are going to try to leverage all of their IP to maximize profit.

That's ignoring they're catering to a totally different audience to begin with, not just different platforms.

COD sells as many copies because of its coop and multiplayer features, not because its that original or made for a certain gaming environment.

Well, CoD also sells that fast because it relies on a mindshare that was already established by a solid (well, reasonably) string of predecessors.
It's a real pity that was never tried with DA. Who knows how big it COULD have been.

[bEVEsthda]

mrcrusty wrote...

The consoles are a limitation on the technical advancement of creating video games. Speaking from a hardware perspective, they are outdated.

Fact. Not opinion. Fact.

That does not mean that games geared towards consoles are crap, or that it isn't possible to cater to both at once. I feel like New Vegas was the epitome of compromise between mostly PC players who wanted the depth and roleplaying of the original Fallout games, and the mostly console players who wanted a similar or better gameplay experience to Fallout 3. I love that game overall and I think it improved on the gunplay, exploration and real time elements that made Fallout 3 great, while adding elements that makes the "PC elitist RPG fan" in me happy.

I also feel that designating stereotypes to types of gamers depending on platform is a stupid notion.

Unfortunately, it's what developers and especially publishers do all the time.

Case in point, both Dragon Age 2 and Witcher 2 were both adapted to work on the consoles as opposed to the PC. For all the smugness of Witcher 2 being a PC game, it's control scheme, inventory layout, UI and engine scalability clearly makes it a game they developed for the consoles.

What they didn't do, was stereotype console players as some slack jawed idiots who would be afraid of introducing depth into the game's mechanics outside of making things explode more. Console players aren't and there are a large range of high selling console games that push technological boundaries and contain depth in it's gameplay. L.A Noire is but a recent example.

Dragon Age 2 unfortunately, fell somewhat to the "zomg! console players must like bigger boooooom!" mentality that plagues publishers. It leaves it's mark on the game's combat. While it was faster and I consider that a plus, it was undeniably more juvenile and in my opinion became absurd especially when comparing it to the combat in Origins.

Yes.

[bEVEsthda]

Almost forgot:
It's possible to contrieve all kinds of noises to the effect that DA2 is not a bad game. However, it is a disgusting game. And from that single perspective, yes it is a bad game.

[Mabaker]

It is that bad. It's an insult to the DA genre which was supposed to be living and breathing Baldurs Gate quality.

An insult. 

[ItsTheTruth]

Terrible, ugly, boring game.

[Loghain_The_Lawless]

As many others have said Dragon Age II was neither good nor bad. It was boderline average. Splendid in it's mediocrity.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

bEVEsthda wrote...

Almost forgot:
It's possible to contrieve all kinds of noises to the effect that DA2 is not a bad game. However, it is a disgusting game. And from that single perspective, yes it is a bad game.

Lol, damn necromancers, you're quoting me from 2 months ago.



But even with my comments, I don't think that Dragon Age 2 is actually a bad game.

A.G.Randad wrote...

As many others have said Dragon Age II was neither good nor bad. It was borderline average. Splendid in it's mediocrity.

This is more or less how I feel. Well, maybe I'm a little more positive. Splendid in it's average-ness, maybe?



Some good ideas, interesting premise brought down by what I felt was very flawed execution. But to each their own. I hear some people think it's one of the best games ever, I hear some people think it's one of the worst games ever. Unfortunately, neither applies to me. Wacky world, with our opinions and what not.

Modifié par mrcrusty, 09 août 2011 - 11:28 .

[Mahtisonni]

I'd say that this game is below average.
The combat was an improvement to DA:O but it certainly wasn't good enough that it could be counted as a selling point when compared to other RPGs.

The story itself was only interesting, because of DA:O and the severe lack repercussions of the warden's actions being seen in the game ruined even that part for me.

The dialogue was awful.
You always had either angry response, good guy response and finally the joking response.
All of these led to the same conclusion, but the only difference was that the tone of his voice.

The party members were boring as all hell. Except maybe for Varrick, but I never got to know the guy well enough since YOU CAN'T TALK TO YOUR GODDAMN PARTY MEMBERS UNLESS THEY HAVE MENIAL TASKS FOR YOU TO PERFORM!
Most of the characters were uninteresting to begin with and that's as far as they go since you'll never get to know them. Sure, you'll get to sleep with them and get them to confess their love for you, but when it comes to small talk that's where they draw the line.
"Sorry Hawke, but I'm not ready for that sort of commitment. That's a bit too sudden. Let's talk again when I want somebody killed OK?"

[yesikareyes]

Jesus, now that I played Origins. I feel like my first post in this thread was complete blasphemy!! Dragon Age Origins forever!

[jbrand2002uk]

considering I played DAO 1st no its not all that bad........ its better the DAO fanboys just cant handle that DA2 improved some aspects over their beloved game

[Gemini1179]

jbrand2002uk wrote...

DA2 improved some aspects

You'll find this to be a highly debatable concept. Each word is likely debatable. What is "improved" in one person's opinion may not be in another person's opinion.

For example: Voiced protagonist- "improved" aspect or not? Personally, I like it BUT you'll find many people who don't.

How many are "some"? I consider 2 things to be "Some". In my opinion, DA2 improved the Tactics mechanics annnnnnnnnd... removed the buffs from dialogue scenes. That stuff was improved, sure.

But since you've given no examples, it's hard to take your post as anything but a "defensive DA2 fanboy", no?

[Savber100]

Was it "that bad"?

No.

Was it that disappointing?

YES YES YES. >.>

[jbrand2002uk]

ok the combat was improved vastly DAO was 2 mins of zumba exercises followed by 5 mins of hump the darkspawn, the DW warrior was utterly pointless and the mages powers lacked any feel of actual power to them

[PlumPaul93]

Yeah it wasn't good. I'll probably pick it up again once it's less than 20 bucks, even then though I'll probably get tired of it.